CDMSlite Run 2 period 1 LIPs Search

SuperCDMS Email Contacts

 

Questions about the project, the experiment or the collaboration:
cdms-contact@slac.stanford.edu

To contact the website administrator:
cdms-webmaster@slac.stanford.edu

Our Sponsors

SuperCDMS gratefully acknowledges the supporting institutions

 

U.S. Department of Energy

National Science Foundation (NSF)

Canadian Foundation for Innovation

McDonald Canadian | Astroparticle Physics Research Institute

Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada


 

SuperCDMS Public Documentation

CDMSlite Run 2 period 1 LIPs Search


Abstract This Public Documentation accompanies the results of the search for Lightly Ionizing Particles (LIPs) using CDMSlite Run 2 period 1 data. Geant4 simulation is used to create the probability distribution functions (PDFs) for LIPs of different charges, mass and $\beta\gamma$. The analysis efficiencies will be the same as the CDMSlite WIMP search with two additional correction factors to account for an additional source of inefficiency in singles and radial cuts. These factors arise due to the fact that unlike WIMPs, LIPs are capable of multiple detector interactions as well as multiple interactions within same detector. These correction factors are calculated using data from Geant4 simulation.


 

Result Topic Last Updated Download Comments
CDMSlite Run 2 period 1 WIMP search efficiency
November 25, 2019
png pdf
Figure 1.

This figure shows calculated CDMSlite analysis efficiency for Run 2 period 1 without the LIP-specific efficiencies. The calculated efficiency has some jaggedness so it was smoothed for the LIP-search analysis. The grey shaded area represents the 1-$\sigma$ uncertainty on the efficiency.
Singles cut efficiency correction (isotropic distribution)
November 25, 2019
png pdf
Figure 2.

This figure shows the fraction of LIP events expected to be rejected because of LIP interactions resulting in above threshold energy depositions in other detectors. This additional inefficiency of the singles cut for LIPs analysis is shown in the figure assuming an isotropic angular distribution for a variety of $\beta\gamma$. The efficiency is lowest for e/100 where energy depositions are largest increasing the probability of a LIP depositing detectable energy in at least one other detector. The efficiency rapidly rises as the LIP charge decreases for all $\beta\gamma$. High statistical simulation results in statistical uncertainties smaller than the data points.
Singles cut efficiency correction (cos$^2\theta$ distribution)
June 25, 2019
png pdf
Figure 3.

This figure is identical to Figure 2 except it is for the cos$^2\theta$ LIPs angular distribution.
Radial cut efficiency correction (isotropic distribution)
Nov 25, 2019
png pdf
Figure 4.

Event reconstruction is not optimized for events with multiple interaction points. This figure shows the inefficiency resulting from the assumption that all LIPs interacting multiple times within the CDMSLite detector are rejected. This additional inefficiency of radial cut for LIPs analysis with isotropic distribution for various beta gamma is shown in the figure. The efficiency is low for e/100 LIPs as they have a higher probability of interacting more than once with in the same detector. The efficiency quickly increases for smaller fractional charges as the probability for interaction decreases. High statistical simulation results in statistical uncertainties smaller than the data points.
Radial cut efficiency correction (cos$^2\theta$ distribution)
Nov 25, 2019
png pdf
Figure 5.

This figure is identical to Figure 4 except it is for the cos$^2\theta$ LIPs angular distribution.
Additional LIPs efficiency correction (isotropic distribution)
Sep 16, 2019
png pdf
Figure 6.

The figure shows total combined additional efficieny correction for LIPs analysis including both singles cut and radial cut for isotropic angular distribution. This plot is simply product of Figure 2 and Figure 4.
Additional LIPs efficiency correction (cos$^2\theta$ distribution)
Nov 25, 2019
png pdf
Figure 7.

This figure is identical to Figure 6 except it is for the cos$^2\theta$ LIPs angular distribution.